RNG-itis: a cure without (notably) changing probability

Trading currently has very high impedance in this game, which has the desired effect of slowing the rising tide of items, and therefor the speed at which players complete the highest content. This is exactly why GGG is against an AH.

"

Courageous wrote:

Trading currently has very high impedance in this game, which has the desired effect of slowing the rising tide of items, and therefor the speed at which players complete the highest content. This is exactly why GGG is against an AH.

That makes some sense, but it doesn't solve RNG-itis. If you can't smooth the distribution of items through trade, then we're back to square one with almost useless orbs. The current trade is wack, and those who trade have a significant advantage due to the reasons I wrote earlier ITT.

"

Courageous wrote:

Trading currently has very high impedance in this game, which has the desired effect of slowing the rising tide of items, and therefor the speed at which players complete the highest content. This is exactly why GGG is against an AH.

Which is irrelevant

There are already sites like poe xyz, and it wont be long (especially after release) that an AH style system (similar to D3) will come out.

There isn't any impedance to trading apart from inconvenience, which is easily by-passable, and we do have a form of currency we can trade, its called orbs

"

Courageous wrote:

Trading currently has very high impedance in this game, which has the desired effect of slowing the rising tide of items, and therefor the speed at which players complete the highest content. This is exactly why GGG is against an AH.

Players should feel frustrated and annoyed just so "the rising tide of items is slowed"?

You guys should try Progress Quest, you'll progress no matter what in it.

"

Players should feel frustrated and annoyed just so "the rising tide of items is slowed"?

I have explained why it is that GGG has made the decisions that they have made; I believe my explanation is accurate. I don't really care to defend their decisions; in particular, because new trading functionalities are currently in development. Present hand-wringing should wait on assessing these new developments.

I have stated multiple times in other threads that my personal preference is to play in a league where trading isn't available at all, and IIQ/IIR is increased by Q%/R%, for some very high values of Q&R. That should reveal to you my attitude about trading in general.

I made billions in that "other game," playing AH Tycoon. It was in fact required that you either do that or bot in order to afford the best items in that game. In retrospect, I'm not a fan of that particular set out outcomes. It would be a tragedy if it occurred here.

I do agree that trading is an enormous PITA right now, and I don't like what we have. But you should acknowledge that if you had all items necessary for closing A3/merc all *POOF* like, you'd likely be complaining about different things, and unhappy for different reasons.

If you find that you are frustrated at any particular time by progression in the game, level an alt. Along the way, you may find sufficient new items and currency to have your favorite alt progress.

Have fun,

--C

RNG is only fun when a player can see the different outcome in a realistic sitting. That's why Casino works. Players keep losing money as a whole but they, in one sitting, can win small amount several times. Fusing is very bad in this regards because the "reward" can never materialize. Perharp we could make fusing more in line with quality; each fusing adds -10 to 20 "connection point" and you need 1p for 2l, 11p for 3l, 111p for 4l, 1111p for 5l and 11111 points for a 6l piece. It's still 1112 fusing on average for a 6l, but there is visible change every time the player fuse, and that leads to excitement.

"

RNG is only fun when a player can see the different outcome in a realistic sitting. That's why Casino works. Players keep losing money as a whole but they, in one sitting, can win small amount several times. Fusing is very bad in this regards because the "reward" can never materialize. Perharp we could make fusing more in line with quality; each fusing adds -10 to 20 "connection point" and you need 1p for 2l, 11p for 3l, 111p for 4l, 1111p for 5l and 11111 points for a 6l piece. It's still 1112 fusing on average for a 6l, but there is visible change every time the player fuse, and that leads to excitement.

This argues for a deterministic fusing. Ultimately, my thread questions the usefulness of "entirely random for all situations." Your interpretation is equally valid.

Another alternative would be to do as you say, but open up the spread on a fusing's randomness potential a bit: 1-30, or whatever. I want to take the time to state here, that I wouldn't know what the value ought to be.

The advantage of your approach is that an item could not go backwards in link count. I actually prefer this in this case.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

If it starts in a random place, every time I get 6L with a character I'm rerolling and never crafting with him again

If it starts in a predetermined place, RNG is destroyed completely.

Well, who says the entropy needs to revert to 0 once you get a 6L? It could just be randomized to any value between -100 and 99 again. That way, the entropy is statistically 0, but you can actually get 2 6Ls in a row.

"

Courageous wrote:

This argues for a deterministic fusing. Ultimately, my thread questions the usefulness of "entirely random for all situations." Your interpretation is equally valid.

Sorry if I didnt make it clearer. I use fusing as an example because it stick out like a sore thumb. Basically, RNG in smaller amount, like 10%, is better then big 0.01% lotto like what we are stuck with now. They have done it with the alchemy shard recipe. They could have made it so you never get shards, but get full orbs from certain perfect mod rolls that you very, very rarely come across. But then, it's not as fun as having a low 5%-10% chance to get a shard. It gives players rewards at more frequent interval to make them happy, but not too frequent to lessen the value of the rewards.

And my numbers have better spread, btw. 1-30 is always possitive. MINUS 10 to PLUS 20, not much so :D